A2m vs Lion, page-184

Yes it's true that the A2 milk case arose from epidemiological research, which showed a strong statistical correlation between A1 milk and heart disease and diabetes. And the original researchers knew perfectly well that, as you correctly say Blackforest, statistical correlation does not prove cause and effect. So really all you're saying is something that's been fully realised for a decade and a half.

And that's why the original researchers looked for deeper connections that might indicate cause and effect. And that's when they (including the head scientist at Fonterra) came up with findings that supported a causal effect, and patented them.

But debate has continued. And the European Food Safety Authority found in 2008-09 that there was not sufficient evidence at that stage to warn consumers that A1 milk could lead to causation of heart disease and diabetes. The EFSA did not dismiss the correlation, it just said in effect that more research was needed. Well, there hasn't been a lot, and that was almost a decade ago.

This is now reportedly one of the issues that Lion intends to challenge in court, alleging A2MC has been guilty of deceptive claims. I'm not sure of Lion's exact line of argument, but my impression is that since the EFSA report which is almost ancient history now, A2MC has not being making public promotional claims based on that old correlation. So it's hard to see how it would have hurt Lion. But that point has yet to be argued in court.

However there has been SOME continuing research into the issue. And while I fully agree that statistical correlation does not by itself prove cause and effect, it becomes pretty powerful if no one can come up with an alternative credible explanation of a very high statistical correlation. Remember, the main case against smoking was for a long time the statistical link between smoking and lung cancer, but it was virtually impossible to prove without chopping up live smokers and observing what was happening in their lungs. Which didn't get ethical approval.

The challenge is still out there. If there's a very high statistical coorelation between A1 and heart disease and diabetes, how does one explain it? And according to Professor Keith Woodford, author of Devil in the Milk, we have more recently gained a better understanding of the correlation. And clinical evidence has also shown clearer links between A1 and its peptide BCM7 and other health conditions ranging from digestive problems to autism.

You say that medical professionals "do not favour anecdotal evidence" which you imply is all that A2M is based on. Well A2M is not just based on anecdote, and what's more it is nonsensical and backward for the medical profession to dismiss anecdotal evidence. Moreover, there is a strong move in the medical profession to reverse that prejudice and give consideration to anecdotel reports. That requires care of course, but not blanket dismissal.

If you don't think scientific evidence is crucial, and you reject anecdotal evidence, how is the company ever going to overcome the doubters, including its commercial rivals? There are plenty of them. I personally have A2M shares because I believe in the science and I know there are others like me.

Someone on this forum has remarked on the lack of news the last couple of days. Maybe a good time to contact friends who have been deceived by Lion's recent labelling campaign and let them know that their experience could help A2MC in its court case.